We knew that there was, as I say, a surplus of well-meaning initiatives by the local municipalities. We knew that eventually it would be bottled down to a manageable number that would be sent to Minister Baird for his review and his department's review and ultimate disposition. We knew that meant that other projects would fall off the table. So--

The Auditor General's report has the following statement, which I'd like any one of you to explain for me in terms that most non-Ottawa people will understand.

It states:We found that for the 32 projects approved by the Minister, Infrastructure Canada set up mechanisms to administer the contribution agreements. The Department examined the 32 projects to ensure that they met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and that agreements were made in accordance with government policy. Infrastructure Canada maintained project records and established project management frameworks.

I want to understand what is meant by “project management frameworks”. I expect it has something to do with the process to ensure that the government got what it paid for.

The framework we apply to any funding program is to ensure that we follow the law, we make sure that government pays the bills that are appropriate, and we make sure that results are achieved. These are the general objectives of any program.

In this particular case, for the 32 projects we did the legal contribution agreements; we assessed and examined the submissions from the proponents, which in many cases were the municipalities, except one case, which was the Province of Ontario; and we made sure the files were robust, because in every project file you have to have the information around the processes, everything that has been submitted.

We made sure that...it's something called “control framework”, to make sure that, in any process, at what points do you put extra controls to make sure that you don't make any mistakes? Especially when you're dealing with as many files and projects as we deal with, we have, as a system, control points injected.

For example, before the final payments were made, we did further due diligence, and then we released the documentation. Then we closed the program.

So it's basic program management, and that, I think, is what the Auditor General referred to.

I would like to summarize the current situation. The 32 projects have been mentioned a lot. The Auditor General had the opportunity to review the 32 projects.

One thing concerns us: $50 million, which was approved by Parliament for a Border Infrastructure Fund, was transferred for the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund without Parliament's approval or even it's knowledge. At the end of the day, a group called the Local Area Leadership Group was created and was consisted of Mr. Clement, the mayor of Huntsville and the general manager of the hotel. This group in question decided, alone, how to allocate this $50 million. That's the root of the problem. We're talking about 242 projects. That's what I'm concerned about now.

I'd like to talk to you about a conclusion the Auditor General made that I'm particularly concerned about. She said that she had asked the Summit Management Office to provide all documentation indicating how the office had been involved in the review or selection of the projects. The Auditor General told us that the office had not been involved in the review or selection of the 242 projects, but that it had held information sessions for the local communities on the G8 summit.

When we look at the minutes we obtained, we can see, among other things, that Mr. Gérald Cossette was present. He was the head of the Summit Management Office. He was also assistant deputy minister for Foreign Affairs. I assume the Auditor General spoke to him. I assume that she also spoke to other officials. But there was no response from these people who were involved in the process. I say this because our emails indicate that he was involved.

Did the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Summit Management Office mislead the Auditor General?

I appreciate your question, and I want to be very clear. I presented estimates from my department for Infrastructure Canada before Parliament. I am accountable for that.

I was advised, recommended by my officials, to use the border infrastructure fund as a vehicle with which we could move expeditiously to get these programs funded. Most of the infrastructure programs were done over seven years. All the other stimulus were done over two. For this we had 15 months from start to finish, so we had to move expeditiously. It was done on a recommendation from the public service.

Having said that, we topped the fund up by $50 million. I think the Auditor General's observation is fair that we could have put in those estimates that $50 million of the money was potentially going towards the G-8--

I'll review a bit of what Mr. Clement said, which was that this group did not have a decision-making role. Mr. Cossette was there to facilitate the deliberations and contribute to them so that the people from the region knew what was going on.

The group did not have a decision-making role with respect to the projects.

No, no, they were not a decision-making group for whittling down from 242 to 33. I've made clear that it was the responsibility of each individual municipality to come forward with their best projects. That was over a period of time. As we were deciding on projects, they knew that the fund was getting smaller, so that concentrated their minds a little bit as well.

I know there is this mythology--as it was put rather interestingly during the election campaign--that I was at a bar somewhere in Muskoka with two other guys making the decisions. That's just a myth. It never happened that way. We were not involved in selecting the projects.